Joseph Smith's Spiritual Language: The Presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon

The question of whether or not Joseph Smith participated in the translation of the Book of Mormon as an actual translator, or merely as a transcriber, remains a point of debate in Mormon studies. Did Joseph receive spiritual impressions and visionary experiences by means of a translation device (seer stone, interpreters, and/or Urim and Thummim) and then articulate them into English by tapping into his own mental storehouse of English vocabulary, phraseology, and conceptualizations (the theory of “loose control”)? Or did Joseph simply read the words of a preexisting translation that appeared to him on the surface of the translation device, without any significant contributions of his own (the theory of “tight control”)? As Richard Bushman aptly observes, “Latter-day Saints themselves cannot agree on how the writings engraved on the gold surfaces relate to Joseph Smith's oral dictation to his secretaries.”1In the course of these debates, the research of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack has played an influential role. According to their theory, Joseph Smith did not actually translate the Book of Mormon but rather transmitted a preexisting text (“tight control”), and they point to an array of evidence to support their position. For example, they contend that certain nonstandard grammatical constructions that have been traditionally assigned to Joseph's western New York or New England dialects are also attested in Early Modern English works, indicating that the “so-called bad grammar of the original text of the Book of Mormon turns out to be acceptable usage during the 1500s and 1600s.”2 Though the argument does not exclude Joseph's dialect from consideration (New England and New York dialects did not appear ex nihilo, but derived many of their features directly from the multiple dialects of Early Modern English spoken by seventeenth-century immigrants to the colonies), their argument nevertheless destabilizes the exclusive attribution of such linguistic features to Joseph's rural, nonstandard dialect(s). The observation thereby offers provisional support for Skousen and Carmack's theory that a speaker of Early Modern English (or a translation device attuned to it) was responsible for the translation of the Book of Mormon rather than Joseph himself.Another important observation by Skousen and Carmack is that the language of the Book of Mormon contains a number of Early Modern English features that either do not derive from the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) or do not share the same meanings or types of usage.3 In other words, the KJV text could not have been the exclusive model for the entire array of archaic-style language in the Book of Mormon—an observation that undermines the argument that Joseph merely lifted and recycled KJV verbiage to articulate the Book of Mormon. Some of the features necessarily had to originate from a non-KJV source (or sources), to which Joseph Smith, according to Skousen and Carmack, presumably did not have access.Along with these non-KJV archaic features, Skousen points to “Hebrew-like” constructions expressed as “an extra and after an initial subordinate clause.”4 Consider, for example, the following “if, and” conditional construction in the 1830 Book of Mormon: “If he [God] saith unto the earth, Move, and it is moved.”5 As early as 1994, Skousen proposed that these unusual constructions represented possible Hebraic artifacts that persisted in the English-language text of the Book of Mormon, seeing as how they appeared to be “uncharacteristic of English in all of its dialects and historical stages.” This observation prompted him to conclude that “these structures support the notion that Joseph Smith's translation is a literal one and not simply a reflection of either his own dialect or King James English.”6 Once again, Joseph, as a non-Hebrew speaker, is therefore excluded as a possible source.This collection of evidence, combined with additional textual clues from the original scribal manuscript and the statements of those who witnessed the dictation process, have inspired Skousen and Carmack to assert that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Mormon, but merely dictated a preexisting text that appeared to him by means of the translation instruments. In the introductory chapter to his study on the nature of the original Book of Mormon language, Skousen makes this argument clear: “The first major point I wish to take up in this introduction is the evidence that Joseph Smith himself was not the author of the Book of Mormon nor even the actual translator of its English-language text. Instead, the evidence is very strong that the original text was revealed to Joseph Smith word for word in English and he dictated it to scribes. The text is not Joseph's creation, nor did he create a text in his own language.”7 Such emphatic and definitive claims suggest that the matter is all but closed. But this is not the case, and this essay seeks to question such premature conclusions.While Skousen and Carmack have enlisted a complex and multifaceted array of evidence in favor of their position, their conclusions nevertheless rest upon a set of foundational assumptions concerning the types of language features (vocabulary, grammar, expressions, etc.) that Joseph allegedly could—or, more specifically, could not—have known. This essay, however, argues that such conclusions should be regarded with caution. I would argue that the resources that they use and the interpretive lenses that they apply remain incomplete and underexplored. Early nineteenth-century working-class families, for example, routinely read and studied the works of several influential authors from the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, resulting in their repeated exposure to presumably inaccessible and obsolete vocabulary, archaic expressions, and Early Modern English grammatical and syntactical constructions. Yet Skousen and Carmack seem not to have explored fully these resources. Moreover, idiosyncratic word usages and curious structural variants can emerge from an individual's incomplete understanding and misapplication of unfamiliar grammar and syntax, as much as they can from artifacts persisting from a source language into a translated text. Yet this avenue of inquiry also remains incomplete.The question of Joseph Smith's involvement as an actual translator thus hinges on the analytic lenses applied to the interpretation of evidence rather than the evidence itself. And, as I argue in this essay, the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not the actual English translator of the English rendition of the Book of Mormon does not derive from a comprehensive examination of all the valid interpretive possibilities. Indeed, I push the argument further by maintaining that the very same evidence that Skousen and Carmack use to support their interpretation of the translation process often and more evidence for Joseph's and the nature and the unusual grammatical and syntactical features in the original combined with a more understanding of the of archaic language features in the early this essay argues that the evidence does in support the theory of “tight but rather points to a process of “loose in which Joseph Smith himself the English words of the Book of Joseph Smith's as the translator of the Book of Mormon the question of whether or not he had the mental of linguistic to all of the language features that appear in the Book of Mormon. In his of a point he the of individual's usage of grammar and with Joseph Smith's to the language of the Book of Mormon is question as to how the language of the text to Joseph Smith's or to the usages that he have up with in rural, nineteenth-century and New This further the nature and Joseph's and the English rendition of the Book of Mormon, and I argue that the of how and then can additional interpretive for the of the text and the of the to do a more as as their can In this the English offers a is linguistic of one in from that of all other of the same dialect or This a of has his or own of linguistic that him or from all the other a language derive from individual's In the process of linguistic of language their Such a of the language spoken the language in and with and and the of the The for a are and of an individual's does not to language also to and multiple of such as the language the language of in not have of with but they also a of and a linguistic these also or such as the language use for spoken and as these thereby of of language This understanding of has to the question of Joseph's in the translation of the Book of Mormon, as as the of in the a it is to that and a of and these can be from one to to a spoken language, for and then it to the language that he or to and the in of the or in which they an to that the of linguistic The same in offers an important to the argument that Joseph could not have translated the Book of Mormon to his language and the language in the text. This does not take Joseph's multiple language into resulting in a and that Joseph's and or even his as the he for his own the in the Book of that Joseph for and observation the of an individual's the process of and does not without In the course of language any number of which in a of of vocabulary, grammar, and of as as and also or incomplete of words by from the of their are they from and unusual of or expressions, or certain grammatical and/or all of these one can the of a nineteenth-century a of Early Modern and such would in multiple such of language and then the original text of the Book of Mormon, strong that many of its idiosyncratic textual features point to a to be more the of a translator with a for in Early Modern the of Joseph's and the and of his as a the following to the original language of the Book of Mormon: I several idiosyncratic of Book of Mormon grammar and that suggest the of archaic in the of early nineteenth-century working-class families, with a on The use of the an archaic that in the Book of Mormon, to how nineteenth-century could and the and of this archaic of his Skousen an unusual Book of Mormon which he as and “The original Book of Mormon text an initial subordinate from its following by means of an use of the In to this these constructions Skousen as an or of or which the and subordinate many he offers the following construction from the which the in the subordinate as I I also I a of a the of the the I I a of In of would not the additional the Skousen to that these unusual constructions a that persisted into the English Skousen further observes, this textual with a number of such as and these Skousen that evidence for this usage the subordinate as in the “If he [God] saith unto the earth, Move, and it is the same however, Skousen that these “if, and” are a the subordinate as and I are not in the Book of Mormon construction in the construction as “Hebrew-like” rather than of these with does however, take into the that these structures share with English-language in the New are in the constructions that share and structural the following from the Book of Mormon and the New have as a of unto this to and it unto this and it be he [God] saith unto this up and and upon that that it be it is he [God] saith unto the it is had as a of unto this up by the and be in the and it should a it is important to that these Book of Mormon and New are not they in of these the Book of Mormon their and upon the English of the KJV New the many structural and the unto this in and Such of New KJV English a process and Such to assumptions an or text. the Book of Mormon from of New any linguistic artifacts from the translation process would necessarily from (the language the New rather than an for the theory of “tight examination of these however, a process these in that the Book of Mormon constructions a of who the and to a This the by that the and In this the of the “if, and” cannot be to a grammatical from the in which the as in study on conditional constructions the of of the and of a is thus to a to its interpretation in that are by linguistic and their the nature of the of the New structures into their Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon, the conditional constructions a a that an to should the speaker “If then it the subordinate a speaker who has the and of to the the the the New constructions or who do not have to such an and merely the as a “If had then would be to it the in the Book of Mormon have the to the in the New do in have on the of the these one of the Book of Mormon who has the to the New conditional for a In the the (the of and of with the him the to and the he this into the of a in the conditional construction in have as a of he unto this to and it a of a linguistic without of this works as a grammatical Yet the that this the to an into the of a who has been to the the and in the New construction to the very that the has on as the the New conditional then the a to and the and the conditional in the then the following with the of for the the of I the of the as the have as a of unto this to it is not in his and the of him as a of is not but This by thereby from the subordinate have as a of unto this to it should and an important this of the the conditional construction into the same conditional that in the Book of this in as a of the subordinate contains a following the initial “If This however, does not remain the of the unto this into the subordinate he unto this subordinate unto this to it this the of the conditional the and The of the to the the it The resulting thus the conditional construction in the Book of Mormon (the is in the subordinate into the unto this to it in unto this and it be Book of Mormon a In the process of an on New the of the into with the introduction of a of the of the original with a The of this in the Book of Mormon conditional constructions that from a process of of the original of the New by of the same than the of a translator artifacts into the text the Book of Mormon, these curious in to be a rather from more than nature of these offers clues the As the translator did not fully the of the original conditional as in the New as the text of the Book of Mormon the translator this as the structural for a of from “if, and” conditional constructions to the of an extra in subordinate with the and of these the In and in the of “if, and” in the Book of Mormon, these constructions in the “if, and” structural had into an mental and oral which the translator to a of the of with for of a with in and the many that or the could that the translator was with an unusual and archaic complex expressions, suggest that the of these constructions a of Early Modern English as of the a and the for language would have of As a the Book of Mormon constructions an idiosyncratic usage that the of a in process of oral by that are directly from nor even directly from without fully and/or use of all the of the original resulting in idiosyncratic that into The of the idiosyncratic “if, and” conditional with several (the extra in subordinate strong that these constructions the rather than artifacts of and of preexisting and can also for several other words on Skousen and Carmack's of archaic which in unto one even to upon the of the and they and The language of this from multiple in the KJV and But for the and This not from the of the but from the of and the his and it and the and they and that they on he the of that from and the and he also had the they and and The and and and the model for the Book of Mormon and KJV in The word however, which in to from other with this such as of unto the of after their out of the of that would into the of from The use of in this Book of Mormon thus from during the and of In the process of oral Joseph on language from multiple in the the in the of to the in a to the in an same process, the unusual use of on the of the Book of Mormon, which Skousen and Carmack as from the to a of the entire The in question the of which is a of the of which the the the language of the The of this however, from the KJV of “The did the language of all the and from did the them upon the of all the The use of from an of preexisting phraseology, strong evidence that Joseph on and language from the KJV to articulate the Book of Mormon Joseph's could for other idiosyncratic usages or allegedly archaic meanings in the Book of Mormon. Consider, for example, the Book of Mormon which Skousen in a of and that appear to in the Book of without evidence for their in either Early Modern English or Skousen I have not been to any evidence in English for the or even or on the other a number of of In a however, Joseph Smith to with in In the course of them the Joseph and the to the words of to this he that or more than is not of than evidence for “tight in which Joseph transmitted other words, the Joseph's own idiosyncratic of a to the the and Joseph's could also for the meanings of to who are or who take an of and to to and in the as to As Skousen has these usages appear to be to the Book of Mormon: I have not been to any evidence for their in either Early Modern English or meanings and however, in the and of an individual's I would the usages are also of an individual's which makes use of archaic the of to the of scribal and the of a dictation process, in which Joseph to the language to an in the of then such can further for additional idiosyncratic or allegedly archaic such as of the more of a of or of of of and of or The of in be a of to be Joseph's New England of from all of these and for a an array of idiosyncratic usages that the types of that during the of an individual's in this case, spiritual But more also a much and repeated of textual a process of and and language to and This process, is not to turns of or the process a and of the Book of Mormon would be to that this same process and is all of Joseph's and Smith's New England and New York with the language of the KJV and the of and have of research to possible of the archaic language in the Book of Mormon. remains the of the into the of early nineteenth-century and that they and read the works of a number of influential authors from the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth with to Joseph, the of such and their in working-class presumably to his and of in In the early however, and by families, or in and debate to and a and his influential study on the of New that the of the in of the the Smith in and works from such authors as Richard and James According to the in these working-class New and his and and the writings of and and Moreover, many of these in and of and archaic language in to the spiritual of their these in in up in from a in he how and himself by and further a that his and his In works from and to and but he remains for The a that has out of one of that to the the is The translated into with in the For early nineteenth-century however, The was not the that significant The also as one of his and in the eighteenth and in and In the eighteenth the appeared in in even with these and their own to up with the and and appeared in several of New York New and In to these and an of The in his an for and who often had or such and of works, it is that such as The with of in the the Smith in and New of the The is an that the of a to a of by and to in with the of their King the and his And, the Book of Mormon, The makes use of archaic language and grammatical with an of textual features that it an for with and how his a for archaic meanings to into the early The of the of the Book of Mormon, The of the Royal Skousen and Carmack words that take on a that from Early Modern rather than Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century that they have several of the the to words with archaic This however, further and for example, persisted into the the they to does not the for its In as idiosyncratic and speaker or scribal can for the usages and meanings of and For words remain on their The further the collection by more The words appear with Skousen and Carmack's in I then from The that either the same meanings and that appear to the Book of Mormon usage more their had in these his rest much was could be nor but by the and of those can they by any means be but by their own specifically, of in a certain their course the of up to the of the he his course to by a of this seem to the and the appear to be to them by I to them into it out in that they should all their it out in means that the in with to the on is not but but that I by I as be by that I have unto is by the very of the it is the of of and an on The of was of that the that a could on was to himself from that he in the The of he of and then and I him that for his he did that was the could not him his he do but all that he could to the is to to to and study the of of these archaic meanings in The should in meanings to words in the Book of Mormon. a can such then an of the archaic language in the of the early nineteenth-century to be more fully into to more of works, for example, that Skousen and Carmack's for and appear in The the and and to be and this should and be In their for words or and of the in which also the and For example, his to be with and such as up to to such as and such as have a to to and such as to and the of and fully of the archaic meanings on Skousen and Carmack's can be in these works by with archaic word The offers for a of archaic and grammatical In study on in of his works and The and of and The of archaic linguistic variants to his in of or and In of usage of all of these “The is the text language is by the language of the Bible as that a more interpretation the literal his works, the do words did the of words the had out of his writings of usage in a also in other writings of the should also that for the a text with of Moreover, as to this archaic was of a of language for and his use of the do according to the of that he was the use of the do in The that not use of this but also a of in the array of usage in the Book of Mormon. In his essay the use of do in the Book of Mormon, with on the which he Carmack types of of this (the did is to the with a or or an is did and the and to a to I or I and in the essay, Carmack which he as in which did is in the and the of without a of the to all of these features, The multiple the following how by did and with his did did did up the did the of for did the for the did the set up his did as any of their was it was in that it did the did remain any more a did and it all the also did and and upon the other did the the the and to his did to their and as their and did did the of works in early nineteenth-century any of his would have been to an of do are not the archaic in on do not a more but his works also additional to and Carmack's several such as with and syntax, of syntax, and archaic or not one to that Joseph Smith read any of the writings themselves and could have a of for many of the Book of Mormon this essay does not a comprehensive of textual that Skousen and Carmack to assert their theory of “tight the nevertheless offers more than evidence to that Joseph Smith's in the translation was more than a process of a to his scribes. the English-language text of the Book of Mormon points to Joseph himself as the source of the English The textual much the The language from a a translator who was a speaker of Early Modern of its a translator who did not have of the meanings of all the words (or and but and a translator to KJV structures and to and The attribution of such idiosyncratic meanings and constructions to his his or other in a and to Joseph Smith to the and of an actual translator, understanding of the nature of his In also the and of the Book of Mormon. As one of the many possible that such a would is than the for the text of the Book of Mormon. In this important and the of the Book of that Joseph Smith and the Royal to the of the text would then as a means to the original of the but it would be the of the that would the foundational text for to the nature of the text as the of Joseph Smith's “loose translation thereby a and for of the Book of Mormon.